Re: OK
From: Henri Wilson (H_at_..(Henri)
Date: 10/31/04
- Next message: sal: "Re: Einstein's Doppler equation wrong?"
- Previous message: chaverondier: "Re: Why it is impossible to reverse temporal ordering in superluminal information transfer."
- In reply to: Paul B. Andersen: "Re: OK"
- Next in thread: Eric Gisse: "Re: OK"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 02:54:20 GMT
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 11:59:03 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hia.no>
wrote:
>
>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> skrev i melding news:0bg1o09a2edr2ur9ahqundvksi8mua52dp@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:57:23 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hia.no>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> skrev i melding news:162rn09l6ght2db8t9o2ihuoeuhc6fs1of@4ax.com...
>> >> On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 16:52:48 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hia.no>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>>
>> >> affecting the curves markedly. These are orbit eccentricity and Yaw angle
>> >> (angle between major axis and line of sight).
>> >>
>> >> Other parameters are complimentary. Double the orbital speeds and the same
>> >> curve shows up at half the distance. Distance is directly proportional to orbit
>> >> 'roll' (as per my use of the term).
>> >
>> >OK.
>> >The number of sets of parametres which will produce
>> >the correct light curve is finite, but none of the sets of
>> >parameters HAVE to be correct.
>> >Better? :-)
>>
>> That's not the corrct interpretation of my statement, paul.
>
>Never mind. We agree.
>
>Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>| So you have confirmed that there are an infinite number of possible
>| sets of parameters giving the same light curve.
>Henri Wilson responded:
>| Of course.
>
>> >> >So when you reluctantly have to admit that I am right,
>> >> >I have once again shown that logic isn't my strong point? :-)
>> >>
>> >> You have tried to make out that your being 'right'; over a triviality is
>> >> somehow important in the bigger poicture.
>> >
>> >If I was right over a triviality, why all the fuss?
>>
>> To my knowlegde, you have never been right about anything.....so it would be a
>> 'first'.
>
>Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>| So you have confirmed that there are an infinite number of possible
>| sets of parameters giving the same light curve.
>Henri Wilson responded:
>| Of course.
>
>I stated an obvious triviality.
>You agreed - eventually.
>I was right all the time.
>So what was all the fuss about?
It is totally irrelevant whether or not you stated it and I agreed. It makes no
difference to the fact that virtually all variable star brightness curves are
easily matched by predictions of the ballistic theory.
>
>> >> >And which "random, chaotic process" might that be?
>> >> >You are babbling. Why should the pulsation of Cepheids be chaotic?
>> >> >It's a mechanical resonance, like in the quartz crystal in your watch.
>> >>
>> >> A bloody great ball of gas powered by a bloody big fusion engine at 2000000K is
>> >> NOT a quartz watch crystal !
>> >>
>> >> Geez!!
>> >
>> >So mechanical resonances can only occur in small objects?
>>
>> Those with dead stable periods,,, yes!
>
>I see. :-)
Don't laugh. I was being a little facetious.
I was merely pointing out that constant periods are usually a feature of of
mechanical resonances.
>
>> >> >> Only ONE factor could be generally responsible for that, the orbit period.
>> >> >> AND YOU KNOW IT!
>> >> >
>> >> >I didn't know that anything is orbiting in your watch.
>> >>
>> >> Don't be childish, paul.
>> >
>> >But you did claim that only orbital motion can responsible
>> >for a stable period, didn't you?
>> >Why does this law not apply to small objects as well as big ones?
>> >Can you please explain that, Henri?
>>
>> Paul, the kinematics of a gas ball like a sun involves turbulent diffusion and
>> viscosity. There is no way a steady oscillation will result from such dampened
>> processes. The whole thing must be chaotic.
>
>There is no point in insisting that Cepheids cannot exist.
>They do.
Why do they act exactly like stable orbiting stars? Why are their brightness
curves exactly like those expected from source dependency of light speed?
>
>> >> >> Where you go completely wrong is that you still haven't got it into your head
>> >> >> that your whole star categorization system is up the creek.
>> >> >
>> >> >You ARE desperate now, aren't you? :-)
>> >> >
>> >> >> For instance what you call Miras and Cepheids seem to differ in little more
>> >> >> than orbit yaw angle.
>> >> >
>> >> >Sure, Henri.
>> >> >All observational evidence is nonsense, of course.
>> >> >Spectra and all that is just fictions.
>> >> >Right?
>> >>
>> >> Some stars DO intrinsically vary. Most are like our own sun and their
>> >> brightness curves obey the BaTh.
>> >
>> >But you cannot give a single example, can you? :-)
>> >Whenever you have tried, you have named one of
>> >the stars which we know are intrinsic variables.
>>
>> I have given several examples and you simply refuse to accept the truth.
>> I can give any number of similar examples.
>
>Why don't you give us a single of those examples, then?
It isn't easy to get details of distance and radial velocity.
>
>> >We KNOW there are numerous binaries which do NOT
>> >behave as predicted by the ballistic theory.
>>
>> WEWWEWEWEEWE DON"T.
>
>You know the truth, Henry.
>I don't have to tell you what it is.
We know that temperature effects can contribute to the shapes of brightness
curves. So what? I haven't included that iin my program yet.
>
>> >And you cannot find a single example of a binary which
>> >DO behave as predicted by the ballistic theory!
>> >Why is that, Henri?
>> >Are there no binaries which are behaving as predicted
>> >by the ballistic theory, maybe? :-)
>>
>> None are so blind as those who cannot see, paul.
>
>Another comment which is irrelevant to the fact that
>you cannot find a single example of a binary which
>DO behave as predicted by the ballistic theory!
Oh That's really a joke, surely.
There are thousands.
One of the problems is 'extinction distance' for light in space. It is
impossible to estimate.
I'm only interested in the shapes of the curves. They are what matter.
>
>> >> >> Look at this quote, "When one measures the radial velocity of Cepheids, one
>> >> >> finds a cyclic variation, which has the same period as their change in
>> >> >> brightness."
>> >> >> So does the BaTh! Doesn't that tell you something Paul?
>> >> >
>> >> >And what should it tell me, Henri?
>> >> >That you are actually using the measured radial velocity of Cepheids
>> >> >as the orbital velocity when you calculate the predicted light curves
>> >> >of the ballistic theory? :-)
>> >> >We both know that you didn't Henri.
>> >> >YOUR data are pure fiction.
>> >>
>> >> I'm sure the power of faith can manipulate the interference patterns from two
>> >> telescopes sufficiently to produce the 'required' answer.
>> >
>> >Yes, the power of faith is indeed incredible.
>> >There are even persons who claim that fantasy
>> >data MUST be correct because they believe so! :-)
>>
>> Why is it that ALL so-called 'supporting evidence for relativity' is fantasy
>> data?
>
>A statement which we both know is wrong about a matter
>which is irrelevant to the issue is hardly an argument for anything.
You still haven't told me how litght from differently moving stars can end up
traveling at the same speed through space. Isn't that embarrassing for you?
Such an important question, too!
>
>> >>
>> >> You didn't know if it was a + or - correlation. Obviously you still don't.
>> >
>> >I suppose you have seen my other posting about this? :-)
>> >You really made a GIANT blunder now, didn't you?
>>
>> Paul, one doesn't make blunders if one sticks to the truth.
>
>When sticking to fantasy, on the other hand ...
>
>Henry Wilson explaining why hot (thus bright)
>binaries have a shorter period than cooler (thus fainter) ones:
>" The closer they are to each other, the hotter will be the daytime side and the
> bigger the day/night fluctuation. So close stars will, on average, be hotter
> than distant ones."
>
>Henry Wilson explaining why bright binaries have a longer
>period than fainter ones:
>" What ballistician would have had the brains to deduce that,
> on average, bigger stars are brighter and should orbit more slowly?"
>
>Very illustrative of the quality of your "explanations", indeed. :-)
Paul, make sure you aren't confusing the terms 'luminosity', 'apparent
brightness' and 'visual magnitude'.
>
>
>> >> >Seriously, Henri.
>> >> >You are only making a giant fool of yourself by claiming
>> >> >that this kind of interferometry does not work.
>> >>
>> >> Anything can be made to work if you know the answer you want beforehand.
>> >
>> >Indeed.
>> >Any known lightcurve you wish can be produced from fantasy parameters.
>> >
>> >I think you would find that real measurements are
>> >not equally complying to your wishes.
>>
>> When thousands of previously unexplainable light curves match the predictions
>> of the BaTh, I am repeared to accept it, aren't you?
>
>There is a very long time since the light curves
>of Miras and Cepheids were "unexplained".
>The observations are unambiguous.
The explanations are quite laughable.
The simple explanation is c+v.
>> >
>> >This one was a bit too stupid to be funny, Henri.
>> >Because you ARE joking, right?
>>
>> No Paul. When one is not brainwashed, one can see these things.
>
>Since "not brainwashed" in your terminology is
>synonymous to "not having learned physics",
>I wouldn't know what mirages you can see.
>
>> >> Everything falls neatly into place under the BaTh.
>> >
>> >Yea, right.
>> >That its predictions are wrong doesn't matter, of course. :-)
>>
>> Name one that is wrong.
>
>HD80715
>Algol
>And enumerable others.
>The predictions of the ballistic theory have proven to be wrong
>in every case when the relevant parameters are know.
I didn't know the BaTh had make a prediction regarding these particular stars.
>
>> >> >> the real answer is that all stars will vary in brightnes but usually the effect
>> >> >> will be too small to be observed.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
- Next message: sal: "Re: Einstein's Doppler equation wrong?"
- Previous message: chaverondier: "Re: Why it is impossible to reverse temporal ordering in superluminal information transfer."
- In reply to: Paul B. Andersen: "Re: OK"
- Next in thread: Eric Gisse: "Re: OK"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
